Stock Footage Question for Gibby

[Peter Richardson]

Hey Steve (and anyone else who cares to chime in),

I am curious about the stock footage business. I just returned from an extended trip abroad:

web.mac.com/peterdrichardson

And, thanks to the trip, have really added to my archive of ftg, a lot of which would probably be well-suited as stock photography. I'm debating now whether to set up my own company or to use one of the already established companies out there and do a profit-sharing arrangement. Truthfully, if it was a good company that gave a good return, I'd much prefer to just keep shooting and not have to worry about the business side of things (that plate is already pretty full!)

I'm wondering if Steve or anyone recommends a particular firm over another. Steve, I'm not sure if your company takes on freelancers, but if so, that would certainly be an interesting possibility, as well. Anyway, let me know when you have a chance. Thanks as always!

Peter

[Clark Dunbar]

Peter,

Selling your own stock footage - takes a lot of time, both for the organization, marketing and fulfillment... very few individuals can shoot AND run their own stock agency with out seriously devoting more time than it's worth.

Mammoth HD is one of a lot of agencies out there. We are small and are only HD, we have already announced RED and 4K/2K galleries and libraries. MHD is growing with new clients and we are adding new talent who have the material that helps fill those needs.....

check out mammothhd.com, and if you or any of the rest of the REDusers here are interested - please drop me a note or call anytime.

[Sean]

Loved the pics on your webpage. In one shot, I see all the bloody camera equipment you packed with you. So does that mean this trip was taken specifically in order to get the stock footage?

[Mark B.]

I've thought about the stock industry too, but I'm not keen on giving away a huge percentage of the revenue from my efforts to some other middleman. There must be some way to automate the stock footage sales online, where the customer downloads the footage and then purchases via online transaction, so that the business aspect becomes insignificant and the only tasks are to keep the site updated with new footage. Or maybe an automated disc burning solution and mailing labeler that ships out discs to the post office automatically.

If the existing stock footage houses could offer a deal where they would take less than 10% of the gross from footage sales, then I might go that route. But I've been hearing higher percentages from most of the companies, unreasonably high in my mind. When you've spent the day slogging up some muddy path with a tripod slung on your shoulder and a pack of gear on your back, you don't want to finish your day off by giving a bunch of your revenue to some guy who's been kicking back in a big cushy office chair all day.

[Greg Voevodsky]

Lowkus... I'd keep your footage, if I were you you then. I do not know many businesses that survive with a 10% margin except maybe grocery stores - but they are very high volume.

You can set up your own stock footage and have 100% of a few sales. I have my footage at several stock agencies... some sell at 50% margins and have sold 1 or 2 shots in 1 year at 200-300 dollars a shot for DV. Others have earned 0 sales in a year (similar footage) and yet again anothers in the 15-20% range have delivered a few thousand dolllar checks every quarter - again with similar footage. Now they are making lots of money from my footage, however, they are making money... others who do not goto NAB, spend lots of money in trade magazines, etc - do NOT make much if any money - either priced above or below.

Also, I'm not sure there is a lot of demand for Tibet footage vs more commercial generic footage. Stock Footage really is just bonus money for you after you make your film. I've seen my footage on national TV spots, to attempted knock off videos similar to what I sell - beautiful beaches.

And like Hollywood, I would say the top 10% of stock footage like current releases or blockbusters does over 80+% of the sales. So 80% or more of stock footage sells very very little. Good Luck!

[PaulClements]

Stock footage is like any product you might create. For example, a friend of mine setup a company producing furniture, they sold a table onto a high street store for £100 that cost £50 to make and the retailer sold it at £400. Doesn't sound fair but that's business.

Companies that want stock footage aren't going to trawl the web looking for an indiscriminant website owned by a camera operator. They'll go straight for the most popular website with the largest libraries to choose from.

Those companies will have spent large ammounts of money promoting themselves in order to get people to put their footage on there and get others to buy the footage from them. Middlemen are a part of business, all I do is think of them doing the boring work that I don't want to be doing. They might make more money but you can do what you enjoy and still make some cash.

I'd be very interested, however, to hear a report from Gibby about the pitfalls and problems that can arise from doing stock footage, the do's and don'ts. And a list of which stock footage providers he rates and doesn't rate.

[Clark Dunbar]

heya guys,

here's a few thoughts on stock footage (from a stock agency)

Can you make money from stock footage? yes
But it requires a lot of effort - doing it yourself or having your footage repped with a stock agency/library.

Selling stock footage is a business, and you need to figure in all the time and resources it will take. Having a few hours of footage will not produce a consistant income stream. So if your marketing your own footage, you need a lot of footage, the time and resources to work with the market - building a resource and keeping communication with the industry. How much is your time worth and do you want to produce images or market them?

If your looking for a consistant income stream from stock footage you need to have a LOT of material - and it needs to be saleable. Great exotic locations, people, lifestyles, industry, sports (model and property released), aerials, wildlife and animal behavior will sell, but another scenic of a national park or another sunset will not likely sell. High production values sell better - so tripod produced clips sell much better than handheld, crane and gib movement are more unique and have more potential... aerials need to be stablized....

SD based material and film transferred has a declining life, as productions are being produced in HD. When stock footage is shot on RED cameras (4K and 2K) the increased market rises - to cover 4K down... and being a large clean image allows for more uses in all production (ie composites, vertical HD displays, etc)

As to agency/talent precentages.. yes they range all over, as does the size of the agency, the number of represented talent and hours of material in their libraries and the amount they spend on marketing. Each has it own niche....

The stock footage market is over $1 billion a year now and growing - as the outlets for programs increases from broadcast and film to marketing, promotional, educational, signage, mobil and web, etc.

Footage sitting in your file cabinet has no value.... and can't generate income.

[Steve Gibby]

The most valuable asset of any production company, big or small, is it's accumulated footage library, assuming that they hold copyright to the footage. If it's marketed correctly, it is a renewing resource - "The gift that keeps right on giving". I call it "mailbox money", because once you have it rolling for you, you get nice surprises regularly when you visit the mailbox - licensing checks.

For those who haven't made the move to license out their footage, here are some basic guidelines:

Representation
You can try to license out your own footage, using your web site, but be prepared for a ton of screening, logging, coordination, dubbing, re-sizing, storage, promoting, contracting (contracts need to airtight), and collection payments. To do it right and maximize the revenue potential of your library, it is a full time job. Remember this analogy: "If it’s fruit you’re after, a slice of watermelon is a lot more fruit than a whole grape!” The point being you may keep 100% of the revenue from your stock footage licensing if you do all the work by yourself, but that can be a lot less money for you than if you have a stock footage house represent you, let them do all the tasks I listed, and you simply get your “mailbox money”. That’s how I market my stock footage. It frees me up to go shoot more stock footage, and to do the many other production jobs I do. Think about it…you can easily lose money trying to save money.

Types of Representation
Some stock houses insist on exclusive representation of your footage. If you agree to that, it better be with an established stock house who you know will push your footage – and I’d suggest no long contracts, but rather short renewable contracts. That way, if they don’t perform, you can bail out. Other stock houses are fine with non-exclusive representation, leaving you free to also have your footage marketed by other companies. That’s the path I have taken. I like the latitude to be represented by multiple companies if I choose. Read the fine print on contracts and make sure you understand everything on them. If you’re not experienced with contracts, having it read by an attorney is a good choice.

Representation rates/percentages
If you do some checking you’ll find a wide variety of percentages, ranging from 20% (you) 80% (them), to 50% (you) 50% (them). Usually the smaller companies will give you a better percentage – but they may also license less of your footage out. Then again, smaller companies often are more aggressive in their marketing efforts and press releases. Thus helping to license out more of your footage than giant companies where you get lost in the throng of producers.

Copyright
I can’t emphasis this enough – you want to retain copyright of your stock footage no matter what. Read the fine print of contracts! Your footage should be licensing out, not being sold.

Licensing fees
Licensees pay a fee for use of your footage that is based on the length of the clip, it’s format/resolution, it’s use, and the duration of the license. Some companies also offer royalty-free collections that have few limits on the use of the footage. Read their licensing contracts and make sure you’re happy with the way they license out your footage. RED 4k and to a lesser extent 2k footage should command real good licensing rates. It will be super high resolution, usually be used in high profile projects, and since it will usually be shot in REDCODE RAW, the stock footage company will have great flexibility in the formats and parameters that they offer your footage in.

Royalty checks
Most stock footage agencies pay licensing fee checks within 30 days of shipping the footage to the licensee. Some pay within 2 weeks – even better for you.

Promotions
Stock footage houses, whether big or small need to promote themselves, your footage collections, and new collections coming online. Make sure you select a stock house that will seriously promote your footage. There are ones who just list it on web sites, and basically forget about it. Others aggressively advertise, distribute press releases, etc. You should ask your footage reps what subject matter and resolution of footage they feel will license the best – then shoot that. Everything licenses, but some genres license way more than others.

Summary
If you do it right, pay attention to contracts, choose good stock footage representatives, and shoot footage that licenses easily, then stock footage licensing can be a great revenue stream for any motion media shooter. I love shooting stock footage because I get to work alone…just me and my camera. I’m really happy with the stock house that currently represents my footage – Mammoth HD (link below). Their service has been excellent for me. They are establishing a specific footage bank of RED One collections, and the coming RED Collections have already been promoted and marketed in advance of their availability. They represent me on a non-exclusive basis, so I’m also free to look for additional licensing avenues for my RED One footage – something I may or may not do.


-------------------------------


I hope this short primer helps some of you as you approach licensing out your RED One footage. If you do it right it may be one of the best business moves you’ll ever make, or have ever made. Hopefully you’ll get a lot of “mailbox money” from the licensing of your stock footage!

Cheers!

[Joel Kaye]

Footage sitting in your file cabinet has no value.... and can't generate income.

Can you give us a more detailed idea of what sells best? Who is a typical stock footage client? (Where's most of that Billion dollars going?)

[ColinSmith]

Can anyone give me any feedback on dealing with the biggies, such as ArtBeats?

I have some dslr timelapse that I have been considering working up and packaging. I had some good communication with someone at Artbeats a couple of years back, but did not end up doing anything at that time, so.... any recomendations? Small Scottish Island landscape footage.

[Clark Dunbar]

In answer to joelnet's question on who and what...?

Who: the worldwide stock footage cliental ranges from blockbuster film projects, national/international broadcast programming, with a zillion cable channels producing programs to corporate marketing - from DVD's to display/exhibit uses..... the stock footage buyer is everywhere. Each have their own projects - subject, direction and requirements.... and budgets. But in general the largest single sector is corporate marketing. Even companies like BBC and Nat'l Geo with their own stock footage libraries - need material that they don't have and buy from outside sources for projects in production.

What: (as noted above) people, lifestyles, business, communication... and subject matter that can be used in illustrating "the" message - weather it's a lion, raging seas, "winning" or competing in a competition, taking risk, caring for a child, working alone in an office at night or the madhouse of a cubical, driving alone or with a bunch of screaming kids... and there are the iconic shots of singles and couples... this list is diverse as the projects. Model releases are a must now days as are property releases... the scenic, landscapes, etc are good - but since they are the most commonly shot material there is a ton of it available and therefore any individual shot is less likely to sell due to the amount of selection available everywhere...

The requests for material is as varied as the projects in production... I can't state this too much.

but the common need is great production valves and a larger portion of the stock footage market is looking for more cinematic style with lighting, camera movement and atmosphere.

[Joel Kaye]

but the common need is great production valves and a larger portion of the stock footage market is looking for more cinematic style with lighting, camera movement and atmosphere.

Thanks, is there a preferred clip length? Like 5 seconds or 15 etc.?

I've definitely had agents tell me they don't want their talent in stock footage because they feel like if the footage gets used nationally it ruins their talent for future bookings because their face is overused. Is that a fair concern? Is the sales price dependent on usage?

[Michael Schrengohst]

I have bought footage from these sites:

www.istockvideo.com - OK for graphics - some HD vids are good for $50 - hard to search and really find specific shots. No customer service.

www.revostock.com - have found some decent timelapse - must buy credits,
most of the stuff is SD and not that good.

www.artbeats.com - great stuff but expensive, good aerial stuff, weak in the people dept.

www.motionzonehd.com - about the only place where I have found royalty-free 24p HD footage, they do have a bunch of clips at $29.00 each.

www.pond5.com - mostly SD clips - you can find some good cheap HD stuff.

www.footage.shutterstock.com - found some good SD surgery clips, not much HD here.

I have looked at MammothHD but the prices seem pretty high?
$50 per second?

[Peter Richardson]

Thanks guys for all the great info. Gibby, as usual, your generosity with information is remarkable. Your argument for using a company like Mammoth is pretty convincing. I'm about to take off for a week in Cannes (on another project, but will try to shoot some stock while I'm there, of course) and am going to put together my library when I return. Clark, I'll get in touch with you after my return. Do you have preferred formats? Most of what I shoot is 720p24n. Thanks!

Peter

[Greg Voevodsky]

Can anyone give me any feedback on dealing with the biggies, such as ArtBeats?

I have some dslr timelapse that I have been considering working up and packaging. I had some good communication with someone at Artbeats a couple of years back, but did not end up doing anything at that time, so.... any recomendations? Small Scottish Island landscape footage.

All you have to do is submit your footage to artbeats - 30+ clips 10-20 seconds and they will let you know if it meets their quality standards and if they believe there is a big enough market for them.

All clips should really be professional and extra ordinary. Average clips not only do not sell well but will probably be rejected. Note - Artbeats has some of the best eye candy out there and you GET what you pay for. "Planet Earth" Footage should be what you should be trying to get - WOW - shots that are hard to get, beautifully shot and unique.

As for someone saying it's expensive, if you buy a whole disk of 30 clips for $299 DV footage - that's a great deal compared to trying to shoot it yourself which is what stock footage is for - saving you time and money going out and shooting it yourself or hiring a crew.

Note- unless the Scottish Island footage is really something incredible, I'm not sure that artbeats would consider such a small market niche.

Good Luck, call them and pitch them your idea, maybe e-mail them some still shots.

[ColinSmith]

Yeah, I'm not expecting to make a fortune selling dozens of collections from here, that is for sure, but they were enthusiastic with the subject matter before, just that is was DV... they were trying to get me to reshoot it with a Sony 900.... I'll work up some of the better clips and see how it goes, was just realy wondering if a European agency might bring more clients looking for the niche, or how that works out...

[Clark Dunbar]

MHD answers to questions....

clip length - 10-15 is average
1080i is the most requested, 720/24p is the least
talent "over use", have not seen it and I would think that it is very rare but for a very select few.
MHD pricing - we have both Royalty Free and Rights Managed pricing and license/use models - which has prices ranging from less than $10/sec (when buying some "collections") to over $100/sec for Right-Managed clips (depending on use, duration, etc).

On marketing to different market or world location segments, the web has opened the market to the world..... we deal with clients on every continent (except Antarctica.... no production companies located there - yet). At the same time - agencies within countries do have their base cliental that has been built over the years and that can be a very nice sales base. Just look at this forum for the international base of members.